Hi Jerrys, Edwina, Gary, Val Daniel, and others offline,
Thanks so much for the lively feedback to my earlier post. Because all
of the comments were top posted and some duplicate others (in part), I
thought I would consolidate a reply here using Edwina's initial comment
first followed by excerpts from others where important and juicy parts
were raised.
Edwina first commented (in part):
My view - and I refer you to that 4.551 quote - is that the Representamen is
indeed the ground, by providng the continuity of constraining and organizing
laws, for a hic-et-nunc semiosic act - but - the result is not necessarily a
mental image but can be a material object. That is, you are confining semiosis
to the human process, whereas I - and I think Peirce did as well - include the
biological and physico-chemical realm within semiosis.
I tried to indicate the need for a broader view with the accompanying
[20] footnote and then I discuss that very subject later in the text; I
agree with your scope. I do not, however, view the Representamen as the
ground. Rather, it is potential, which intrudes to signal awareness of
the Object. In the primordial soup, it might be the light or spark that
aids to combine chemicals to create organic compounds. It is any
potential of any nature that can bring focus to the object, the process
of which may result in something new, a Thirdness. In our symbolic
realm, it is the "soup" of language and terms and previous knowledge
applicable to the context at hand that, when directed to the "object" of
the current discourse, can after inspection and practice lead to new
ideas and "laws" and standards, again a Thirdness.
2) Continuing with this, you write: "A sign is an understanding of an “object” as
represented through some form of icon, index or symbol, from environmental to visual to
aural or written"
Again, I quibble with your reduction of the Sign [that full triad] to 'an
understanding' [by whom?] and to calling it a 'representation'. Since I accept
biological and physico-chemical semiosis, then, I'd say that the SIGN [that
full triad] is a Transformation of object-data...not a mere 're-presentation'
but a transformation, using the normative Laws within the Representamen. So
,certainly, the odour of a chemical can be 're-presented' in the mind as an
index and symbol ...eg, 'that's sulphur'. But, the actual chemical of H and O
can be transformed by the laws of a Representamen...to result in an
'Interpretant' of Water.
OK, I agree, this language should be tightened up. But for my context,
knowledge representation which is based on symbols that are intended for
human and computer agents, I think I am using symbols (terms) applicable
to them.
4) . . . . But, the process enabling this diversity is found, I suggest, within
the fact that the Ground-for-Interpretation, the Representamen - can be in many
categorical modes. The Represntamen can be in a mode of Firstness, Secondness;
or Secondness-as- Firstness..or in any of the THREE facets of Thirdness [3-3,
3-2, 3-1]. This enormous range of organizing input data from the data, via the
broad categorical range found within the Representamen - results in that
adaptive flexibility.
See my earlier comment about treating the Representamen as the "ground".
My understanding is that Peirce fairly uniformly referred to the
"ground" as a "pure abstraction" of the thing or concept at hand (that
is, the pure abstraction of the Object); the Representamen only acts to
draw attention or focus to that thing. The word "milk" draws our
attention to the white stuff in a glass that likely comes from a cow. A
picture of milk or hearing the cow being milked does the same thing.
Insofar as a Representamen can be perceived (however broadly you want to
construe this relationship) by an Interpretant as being near the limit
of the Object's "ground", that is a good thing. But "ground" is not a
required character of something to be a Representamen. (IMO.)
5) I do, however, quibble with your triangle. Peirce himself didn't use the
triangle. See 1.347, where he uses an 'umbrella spoke triad'. This image OPENS
the semiosic process to networking, whereas the triangle, in my view, is a
closed, one-way linear process and obscures the power of semsiosis.
This point was then discussed further by Val Daniel.
I was unaware of this earlier history, and would like links to learn
more. I personally prefer an open icon to one that is closed.
That said, however, the closed triangle is found frequently and taken by
many to mean a unity, a whole. I will use whatever the community decides
is the right icon, but quibbling about that is not of much personal
interest to me. It seems like the question is one for the broader
community. Just try this image search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=peirce+semiosis&tbm=isch
Jerry LR Chandler's comments on "decomposability" were very helpful. Thanks!
Then, Jerry Rhee made some additional points; I only repeat the
questioning ones here:
But he also discovered some dangers in the method; that he will have trouble
communicating it to others because the force of evidence can only be
apprehended through experience.
Sure, but I find his guidance on "natural classes" also informative, and
in that method he recommends assembling the data.
This next one also generated discussion with Edwina:
Among your list is “induction deduction abduction”.
I think it ought to be abduction deduction induction (then recursion).
Would you mind justifying why yours and not mine?
Yes, I think this is a really key point. Peirce claims that new ideas
only arise from abduction, which he also calls a synthesis. I understand
this to be Thirdness.
Abduction is seeking new connections, new continuities, new ideas, new
understandings and laws resulting from habit or practice. Abduction
needs "truthful" information and a context upon which the
hypothesis-creation process can work.
In the context of my paper emphasizing knowledge representation and
categorization, abduction is also the logic for "decomposing" the
category into further sub-categories, the testing of which is then done
through (first) inductive and then deductive means. The purpose is to
establish the "truth" for that category that, once realized
(approximated after wringing out ready falsehoods), can then be
contemplated for hypothesizing new ideas, perhaps leading to further
categorization.
(BTW, the categorization is important because it helps set the knowledge
structure over which inferencing may take place.)
>
> Also, as Edwina mentioned, there are differences between interpretant
and meaning. So why interpretant and not meaning?
>
Not sure what the point is here. Meaning is like a "ground" for the
sign, it is the abstract meaning of the concept or thing at hand that is
the current focus of the sign-attention. In a KR context, the
"Interpretants" are both machine and human, and what they "understand"
may be closer or farther from this ground-truth meaning.
>
> Finally, I think a person working in AI should be concerned with what
makes for a good abduction as opposed to any other formulation. So why
eros and not epithumia?
I was just trying to list all of the Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness
triplets I could find. If you have others to suggest I would love to
hear them and add them to the table.
As for AI in general, I hope to opine and we intend to implement many
different aspects. Good abduction is definitely on the list. ;)
Again, all, thanks for your comments and input. If there is more, I'd
love to hear it.
Best, Mike
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
